thank you all for coming. we don't want to break the microphone. it's a nice, cold, clear day in washington and i think it's the same in geneva, and i had trouble tearing myself away from twitter this once i hope that there is news from their you will, someone who is on twitter here in the audience will let us know. clearly there is a connection, however, between what is going on in geneva and what is happening here. if there is a nuclear agreement, if there's an improvement in relations between the united states and iran, between iran and the western community in general, that is going to have an impact on iran's role in the region. and we are focusing today on iran and its eastern neighbors, specifically afghanistan, pakistan and india. while iran is often considered a middle eastern country, in fact, it's historically its cultural ties are as strong if not stronger with its eastern

neighbors, with afghanistan and south asia. and, of course, iran will be a pivotal player as it has been all along in afghanistan, especially next year as the united states and nato began to withdraw all its, some if not all of their forces. we are launching a new issue brief this year that have some recommendations for u.s. policy. including a bigger role helping afghanistan manage its water resources, which is a key issue for iran as a downstream neighbor. and the united states can contribute to resolving other regional problems such as energy shortages, ethnic conflict, and drug trafficking. this would have enormous benefit not just for iran but for afghanistan, pakistan, india. indeed, the united states indirectly because of the drug trafficking. the principle author of this report is my good friend, fatemeh aman, is an expert on iran and south asia. she's worked as a journalist,

media and political analyst and has written widely in english and persian. she's a frequent contributor to jane's publication and is currently president of global media trail, a virginia-based company specializing in analyzing and monitoring for me. i've known and one for five years and i've always been impressed by the depth of her knowledge and her passion for the subject. next we have a new speaker here, laura jean palmer-moloney, who's a senior research geographer for the u.s. army corps of enginee engineers. she joined government service in 2000 when she began a study of the helmand river which will hear a lot more about, and she studied the helmand river watershed and its tournament which is the sistan basin. she served in afghanistan in 2001-2012 and senior advisor on watershed management to the commanding general of regional command southwest, and she has a ba in anthropology, an m.a. in geography and two ph.d's.

is the author and co-author of numerous publications related to water security but it doesn't mention this is a key issue for iran and its neighbors. then our final speaker is barnett rubin, better known as barney and is now director of the center on international cooperation of new york university. we are pleased as shuja just said, debut as an ex-u.s. official. from 2009 until last month, he was senior advisor to the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan at the state department. he's a longtime expert on afghanistan. he's directed the center for preventive action at the council on foreign relations. he's taught political science at columbia and yale, and in the aftermath of 9/11 he was special adviser to the u.n. special representative of the secretary-general for afghanistan, during the period that produced the course the bonn agreement and the first

post-taliban government for afghanistan. so with that brief introduction i'm going to ask each of our speakers to make brief remarks and then we will go to questions. fatemeh. >> thank you very much, barbara rowe said come and thank you, shuja. i would like to thank atlantic council for providing us this opportunity to discuss an issue that we really think is amazing importance to the peace and stability of the whole region. and i was just very quickly, the role of the report that barbara

wrote is to attract attention to the issue that we think is not just as barbara mentioned, is not just important for the sustainability and stability of afghanistan, that also the entire south asia and central asia, and would also be of interest to the u.s., you know, fight against terrorism, insurgency and drug trafficking as barbara also said. so let me just make, you know, explain briefly what the report is about. ..

no similar dispute with iran and the south asian neighbor. there are disputes which jim will explain in detail, but no differences over iran. pakistan and iran's relation has always been cordial and friend friendly. with full military and financial support for pakistan during its wars with india, and in fact you're on was the first country

to recognize pakistan in 1947 and pakistan was created. they have been very close and very friendly with full support in pakistan against india. one major reason was the fact that india and pakistan beyond two different camps on socialism and pakistan is a us ally and air on -- iran was a close ally of the united states in the region. so, after 1979's revolution, iran -- every day friendships still continued and the exporting of islamic ideas and revolution that air iran band

and was promoting does not apply to pakistan for several important reasons i believe. one is the shiite community are very integrated into the pakistan society. if you can go back to the founder of pakistan who was a shiite. or the other reason includes the fact that pakistan shiite community is very divided, but more importantly perhaps is the fact the islamic model that existed in iran said they have stayed away from interfering in the pakistan matters.

there have been several ups and downs in the iran pakistan relations and it has never -- during one of the downsides in the '90s is when it turned out that pakistani nuclear technology was transferred to air iran even if they believed the pakistan government responsible official did not know of the deal. with india, iran closed in the early 70s even in the late 60s and early 70s and the fact that pakistan lost the war mac to india and lost a big chunk of its territory. saudi arabia coming into play in

the us presence in the middle east. i think it's made the shah of iran evaluate the relationship and concluded that -- you could see from the visit of the shah agreeing to india and the relationship started getting warm and somehow close, not completely analyzed (-left-par . that was a good reason to get iran joined on the movement. india was the creator of the starter of the movement. that brought the two countries together.

in the '90s i would describe them even cooperating in the military and security areas. iran provided olio and gas -- oil and gas that was the ideologically things in the way of getting the two countries closer. so the pipeline will discuss in detail that was an area that india and iran was very close and you will hear the story how

india has to pull back in 2009. iran and india are very close friends and that was like three times that india voted at the board of governors against iran, which deters iran to the un security council and that was the ground for imposing more sanctions on iran. with -- let me know if i can -- very quickly about afghanistan. iran has always been present in afghanistan, even during the soviet occupation and the communist regime. the only kind of iran's presence in afghanistan was during the taliban regime that even though iran was hosting the warlords,

iran was hosting millions of afghans, and it made in export growth in to expand its self power in afghanistan and also this fits heavily in the conception of afghanistan after the fall of the taliban regime. so in time it has also fought and disrupted the political process in fighting us over the foreign military in afghanistan perhaps to make sure that afghanistan cannot be the ground base for the us to attack iran. and in time they have managed to do that. in conclusion, as barbara lynn chen, we believe there are issues in south asia that does not have a solution. there is no such thing as solving afghanistan's border

issue without the fact that there is also an issue in the eairan. any solution needs to be reachable should also involve other parties and other countries that definitely we believe would contribute to the peace and stability in afghanistan in 2014 after us troops have left afghanistan. thank you so much. >> thank you. i'm hoping that i can click through it. it is a pleasure to be here this morning. and quite an honor to represent many of the folks behind the search effort that we've been

doing about the regional border security issues that are tied not only to afghanistan but to its neighbors. let me clarify one more point that barbara made. i feel i could have been afghanistan from 2001 to 2012. it was just 2011 to 2012. i have a lot of gray hair as a result of that. i was deployed to afghanistan not as an army corps of engineers representative but as something called an aztech hand reporting to the commanding general in the region command southwest and was expected to be away from my base outside of a lawyer working with people and issues dealing with water. it have to be engaged with a love of the provincial leadership in afghanistan as well as going up to ministries in kabul. i couldn't understand the situation as it is now without that field experience. i noticed the preacher lisa picture they chose for the bio is me and my chemical fatigue. although i was deployed or often

than not i was in the city that i trampled around the helmand river quite a bit and when one of the marines do you think there is any of those soviet mine in here, i said there could be. that is what they would do with the dogtags downstream. we were hot and sweaty and we had an absolutely incredible experience. monitoring the water that is involved in any of the systems is probably the fundamental challenge to understand water security in the region. there has been no true monitoring on a consistent basis in afghanistan since the late 1970s. and that is something that fundamentally has to change. that is something that some of the isaf forces were working on and finds the problem with the afghan government is trying to work with as well as the local and regional groups.

that's where i want to take you in this period prior going in the government service i was a college geography professor so it's important for me to meet sure you have a sense of place and that's why i brought some of these slides. if you don't have and have a cognitive map of afghanistan running through your head right now, try to get where you can be. afghanistan's issues of life and livelihood are tied to water. it's a landlocked country. it also happens to be the headwater to five system to move into central asia, into iran, into pakistan, and important to note, water flows downstream except when exposed to words money. that was the saying when i taught school in colorado. that was our comment about the colorado river. you can redirect rivers, you can use it to death without ever monitoring it. but unless you know the cost benefits, what's coming in and what's going out, you don't know that what you're doing is

sustainable. now, i do want to let you know that one of the topic that i am working on right now as a research scientist for the army corps of engineers has to do with water security and sovereign state stability. because to stabilize the population's movement to support agriculture, to generate energy and to start to sustain public health, you need water. and it underpins the essential services that a country is citizens expect of an established government takes afghanistan citizens expect that comedy iran citizens expect that, but it's a challenge and it can't be guaranteed. countries around the world peace profound water security challenges and ties to food, energy, climate variability and population dynamics which can exacerbate ethnic and political tensions, negatively affect the social well-being and increase the likelihood of a sovereign state and stability. now, i'm going to click over to the next slide, god willing.

if this isn't working i'm going to -- okay. thanks. the stability and economic development in afghanistan hinge on the improved management of its water resources. given the dominance of agriculture in the afghan community, the relatively low fraction of the aerial lay hand and the poor condition of the waters of the country's water infrastructure and the inadequate coordination and planning of water related civil projects. now, this map has afghanistan space as if it is not tied to any of the countries around it. and also, doesn't show that those watersheds extend into the countries around it so please keep that in mind. that presents a huge balance we make over and over again if we look at countries in isolation but not watersheds regionally. this water is critical. one of the things that has happened since 2002, as we've had civil and military project

is developed to ensure progress and stability in afghanistan, water has been considered something called an essential service. it has been bundled into things called the sector working groups. and it's been about infrastructure and it's been about the acquisition of water for a family. for a village but not tied to the scale. this is something that's critically important if we bring down air on downstream. please bear that in mind. as a member of the army corps of engineers i can tell you engineers want to have a mathematical solution to a problem. what is the diameter to the pipe we need. how much water flows needs to be in place. how do we solve this? that is the algorithm that we use? but this is a human problem and the dynamics are as in critically important as the watersheds because the different types of people who live in the area, the past two and elements in central helmand and the northern part of the helmand

watershed compared to the populations downstream and compared to the population helping with some of the construction, all of those factors are critically important so you need a geo- narrative of this area to really understand it and it needs the physical as well as the human components. so, that is what our watersheds look like. since the 1950s when the united states was involved in putting in dams in this area, the kajaki may be familiar to some of you. they were put in in the 1950s and they were countering activities in the north that was more tied to the soviet union. so in many ways come afghanistan was kind of seeing a proxy war if you will between who can have the influence. in the south it was the right dates through usaid and a number of plans. many of them as with any project that relies on irrigation has to

have water. we've built these projects, we've put in things assuming water will be there and that is probably a rather erroneous assumption because many times the water that is there is not in a quantity that is needed and in many times the water that is there is not th a quality that s needed. the romans kne do that in carth, right clicks if you sow the fields will tell the crops. cross. if you water the field that is so high that it retards the growth of the crop you haven't really solved the problem. you can't put in the wells and assume that is going to bring water to a city or a population of the water from the well is not plausible. in many places in iran unexcused become is probably downstream in the basin. we don't have the hydrogeology studies that are needed to understand if the wells are putting will they solve the problem. this area has been undergoing an enormous amount of drought

conditions. as a geography professor, please let me help you understand drought means an anomaly. it's a reduction in water that is anticipated. this area is a desert. there's been less water coming to the river from the central helmand is no pass. water is unpredictable. the water that is contained varies. we have members of challenges in this area. if you can either slide, the upper left-hand flight is a picture of the river in october. the amount of filth in that river is incredible. you can almost walk on bathwater. it's not something that you can grab a bucket and take him to drink but people do. on the path you will see a floodefloodof cornfield. we have many projects we are growing corn to tell back under to create more organics for the soil and human consumption.

there's an enormous amount of transportation where you lose water to the atmosphere from the system so you're losing water that way. it's drought tolerant and salt tolerant and everything that works in this area. and as we try to train the crops and do things differently, those need to be considered. down on the lower left-hand side there is an image of someone with their sheep or out of near the water every thing and every one loses water from the system, yet it is unreliable. on the right-hand side i was shot down in the area of helmand province which is a semipermanent settlement and they are not getting their water straight from the helmand syst system. this is the agriculture.

if you're near an irrigation pal and have water you can have green. if you do not have water it is a desert. unless you are nomadic and move around. i have to catch right on the marines back to get across. you have to look at a number of scales. the area that is highlighted on the map of th, the most northerd box is around the kajaki reservoir and the boxed area is showing kandahar. you need to consider the water food nexus with all of this because we have a river system with a limited amount of water. that water is being used for the repeated agriculture. the water is being used to produce electricity. kandahar is a consumer of

electricity. as we have tried a number of projects represented. to increase the amount of electricity you have to hold water behind the dam to have enough hydraulic head. you have to have enough water behind the dam to generate power releasing it for agriculture further downstream. we have people down there, human come sunshine of water that is absolutely necessary and this is where it backs up again. these are just a few shots if you've never had the privilege to be out to the reservoir it is quite an engineering project. as i said it was built in the 1950s and the hydropower was added in 1975. period energy and lives have been put into that. we, the united states not only the international forces

military but through the usaid and implementing partners have done a lot of work on irrigation, canal rehabilitation that affects the amount of water in its system. we have put in. everything that you move and capture the water upstream you are keeping it from going downstream. remind yourself what is downstream, iran. the boundary agreement in place. the river accord signed in 1973 determined the specific central amount of water 22 cubic meters per second with an additional 4 cubic meters per second and normal water years. however, this agreement was never fully implement it due to the afghan two. the soviet invasion of afghanistan is like a revolution

in iran and the tensions between the taliban and and the tehran government. they have been inconclusive to date. so we're you have usaid projects being funded at ten of water into the new canals the that ise sum of iran is critical. we have the mountain of thailand's leading down to the low end of desert, draining its two the basin. it was k. mico taken off the kajaki and the release of water. 77 cubic meters per second. this was in october of 2011. i traveled 280 kilometers downstream to the area.

it's by an order of magnitude from 77 cubic meters per second to seven. there was no water system. we can use the imagery to determine that is the way that it's been over time the water floods and retreats in the system. we've documented that. and thanks to the satellites, this is something that could be discussed and shared with our international partners. on a number of slides to have gone in and over the past few years it's been moving actively to conserve water to redirect water for irrigation and its growing population in the regi region. these pictures are right on the border of afghanistan. it is a bustling city. and since 2,009 when the indian government helped fund the road

that connects from the border up to the ring road if you are familiar with the jargon that is the road that is on afghanistan and can bring the trade and commerce to the central asia. this is huge. now there's another way to get there. the trucking traffic between iran in afghanistan at the border crossing, the amount of money that could be tied to the trade and transportation. because otherwise it was not as important. and that's it. thank you. i would say this is a picture down to the port. this is critically important and it's also the port being funded by the indian government to be

increased as the trade and traffic could improve with water development strategy and the iranians are noting that as well. thank you for your time and attention. [applause] i should also mention in iran there is a decent it's not just irrigation for drinking and agriculture but there's a tremendous wildlife refuge. it's a pleasure to speak to you as a powerless person, because i found in my time in government but the fact that my interlocutors found i had the

special forces standing behind me to win the argument. that inhibited them from actually hearing what i was saying. so i'm hoping i won't have that problem anymore. we can have more engaging them in -- more of a genuine exchange. i would note that while i won't have time to make any of this explicit, the water issues actually are closely related to these political security ethnic issues and so on. it's not a coincidence that the river basins coincide with the territories of the leaders that emerge from the civil war. it's not a coincidence that of the borders that cut the water basins in half, and of course nomadism is an adaptation -- nomadism and irrigation are

complementary. irrigation brings the water to the people and nomadism brings the people into the animals to the water into both have implications for political authority with military mobilization and so on. the backbone of the caliban and helmand especially from the tribe who were moved to the north where there was more irrigated land by the monarchy and who were expelled from that area by the generals troops in 2,002 and there have been displaced people in helmand andd where there's an increasing shortage of water. so, reselling them as part of a political settlement but also reply you're dealing with those water issues. now, iran. this administration came into office with the idea of taking among other things a regional approach to afghanistan.

the emphasis has been on afghanistan's relationship with pakistan. that is appropriate. that is a very complicated one to understand one that is difficult for the us government. i will tell you a anecdote about this. a few years ago i was at one of these supersecret international meetings off the record so will have to remain supersecret because if people found out what went on there and they realize how unimportant these meetings actually are and they realize how little goes on there but there is a panel about iran. the question i asked as to the united states of any other enemies with whom it has so many common interests. afterwards, henry kissinger came up to me and said we have more with iran not our other enemies but with most of our allies.

the paradox difficulty of the relations in afghanistan. roughly speaking, the us and iranian interests in afghanistan are quite consistent, except insofar as they require a u.s. presence there because the relations overall or antagonistic. overall the us presence to realize goals that are otherwise in the interest are seen as a threat by iran. so, this creates a vote of confusion. now, as many of you know, i see craig here because i'm about to pull the story that he was part of at the bond talks where craig was part of the u.s. delegation in 2001, the us and iran worked together to reach agreement on the successor government to the caliban. the iranians actually came up to craig and said that they wanted to use this as an opening to

discuss and proving relationships with the united states and as i recall he said there are other issues we have to discuss that are in the way of that and he said let's discuss them. they were put in the axis of evil, so move forward. iran nonetheless during the per period managed this contradiction by making them stabilization of afghanistan a de facto cooperating with the united states, higher priority than its antagonism in the united states and iraq. even as the tensions increased, and to talk about as you may remember in the bush administration the regime change and now they are sitting around the table at least with everything still on it. and despite that, iran still have the position, as i was told

being out of the government by iranian officials, that even if the united states attacks iran, iran will not respond in afghanistan or iraq. that was their position. now, the position changed in 2007. when the iranian government decided that the u.s. presence in afghanistan was a bigger threat to iran than instability of afghanistan. it wasn't a black-and-white decision. that was the period in which iran started getting selected targeted aid to the taliban commanders especially in western afghanistan in order to send a message to the united states. and it was also -- it helped organize demonstrations against the us afghan strategic partnership, which went further than iran wanted some of the dead beat the demonstrators in sharif killed a member of the

guards. so i ran i hope learned from that but once you start organizing violence in afghanistan or anywhere you may not be able to control it. and i have been involved in my official capacity in a number of multilateral meetings, the official in a semi- official, where i've come to understand better the iranian position of the stabilization in afghanistan. let me explain what it is and how it relates to the position. first of all, the us from the beginning of the obama administration, the u.s. want td a direct dialogue with afghanistan about iran. and we never got to that, excuse me a direct dialogue about the afghanistan and we never got to it because obstacles on our side and their side. i want to go into it right now. currently i have the opportunity during the visit to new york to have a few private discussions with iranian officials who might know from all these interactions over the years.

their view was that if there's significant progress on the nuclear file that will then create the political space for the u.s.-iran engagement. what are the issues? both u.s. have a common interest in the stabilization of afghanistan, and more than that both the u.s. and iran are trying to the political dispensation in afghanistan acceptable to them. which is not the case for pakistan which was pushing for certain changes in the political dispensation. however, they have different models of how to move from where we are to a more stable situation. the united states bottle has -- the u.s. government model -- and i don't want to exacerbate the model that i will present it as if it were coherent -- it has one track, which is as we withdraw our combat forces,

build up the afghan national security forces, of course support the afghan political process and in particular the presidential elections which are essential for afghanistan's future because strong security forces with no government or not -- strong armed forces without government or not security forces. and at the same time, recognizing that there's a political base as well as other bases for the insurgency to seek a political settlement, television or other groups on the condition that as part of the agreement they separate from al qaeda and other international terrorist groups and accept the constitutional framework and afghanistan. as the backbone of that, the united states sees a small but important long-term us military presence as well as long-term

financial assistance to the afghan security forces as essential to provide a stable force in the course of the transition. of course if it's really successful, we will transition out of that eventually and everyone agrees that the goal should be in afghanistan with no foreign troops. but if we succeed in negotiating the terms of the bilateral security agreement and the us and the afghan security will agree on a long-term presence for as long as it is needed. now air on's position is that of long-term military presence is in fact a major cause of destabilization in afghanistan. they threat to them. they say it's a threat to other neighbors and even if mr. obama who wants peace if they succeed him and they have a colorful picture of the american scene in whicwhich they want to present e of they said their three groups,

powerful in the congress, the neoconservatives, the military companies and the christian extremists who believe that the end of days are coming and that there is no point in seeking peace. so they are not sure who is going to be in the -- in control of the military forces in the future area that is what they say at any rate. and therefore, they say yes we accept the need for a political settlement. that is to say they would be prepared to support some kind of a negotiated settlement that modifies in some respect to the political dispensation in a way that was not a threat to them or a threat to their allies and friends in afghanistan. but that's impossible as long as there are us troops. in recent years other countries that opposed us presence in particular russia and china have very much modified their position. they still oppose the president basis but still russia and china

advised the president of the highest levels. if he's sure to sign a bilateral agreement remarkable for russia in particular which has been quite vocal about this. iran has not yet changed its position about that. the president what he was in new york reiterated a previous positiothe previousposition at d leave afghanistan. we don't know if the dialogue will lead to a modification of that. but let me briefly see why that would be so important. to the extent that iran has been supporting some television commanders, that shouldn't be misconstrued as support for the taliban. they support armed groups in order to send messages to the united states, perhaps the afghan government from time to time but that of course is destructive besides the fact i might mention this, it kills

people, which is undesirable. and they might be prepared to stop that in that case. perhaps more important is that iran has a great deal of influence, softcover as it has been referred to in afghanistan. there are many afghan political leaders who they have close ties and it's known that they give cash to the presidency as the united aids. they give cash to other political leaders in afghanistan. they have members of the talib taliban, they have contact with them. of course the price is often money which means that in the future, whether there is a full-scale insurgency war or not, every political move will continue to be negotiated in a very tense and unstable situation. in particular, the outcome of the next year's presidential

election will very likely be negotiated. i don't mean the voting is irrelevant. but it's not an probable that the vote and the vote counting will not be decisive. there will be uncertainty about who got how many legitimate votes. we don't know yet if the country is capable of holding a second round. even if it is, forming a new government will require a huge amount of negotiation among various powerholders you u.s. and iran are still not speaking to each other at that point, or the fear each of his influence in afghanistan, that would have a very negative influence on those investigations. if they are engaged and they can communicate, they as well as other powers will play a very positive role in enabling the afghan political actors to reach agreement on the successor regime and the same goes for a political settlement. because the fear about political settlement which would involve changing the political dispensation. i should mention in those discussions between the taliban and the united dates haven't

said anything about that. they are concerned about the presence in iran and the prisoners in guantánamo. nonetheless, again that would be also a very tense and a difficult political negotiation. if iran feels excluded or that such a political settlement would be at its expense than it could be very disruptive whereas if it were included it could help find solutions to some of the very difficult problems, some of which involve water inside afghanistan. so, what happens today is quite crucial because it may open the door for the us dialogue about afghanistan which could be very helpful to the security and political outcomes and to the american efforts.

>> i want to start with fatemeh. you talked a little bit about iran and pakistan. but one of the issues that has also been at th that the dispute between the united states and iran to export natural gas to the region for the so-called peace pipeline iran has constructed its portion of the pipeline. it is to go to pakistan and eventually india but the policy has kept us from happening. do you foresee any possible change on the front and if you could also say something about sharif, iran had to deal with a relatively benign government for the last few years in their point of view, but sharif is

close to the societies and there have been more instances in baluchistan were both pakistan and iran face in true debate to -- insurgencies and the 14 iranians and the border guards were killed recently and the rumor is that, you know, the saudis gave the money and they gave them a green light to support the groups. so the peace pipeline is better. is there a better chance now? what do you think that is going to do for the pakistan relations? >> let me say something to answer your question. there is an exhibition -- expression meaning something started very big and what you have from the peace pipeline is a synthesized model. the peace pipeline has involved several prime ministers and at

least including rhouanni in iraq. so it would continue and would be go beyond. but there's also a good chance that that is what iran thinks at this point from all of the stories that come from pakistan. on the pakistan -based institute to describe the disaster is or just to, you know, discuss the pricing but if you know the deal is not going to go anywhere and pakistan will have money.

and then they start talking about pulling the deal and the pipeline from pakistan. so i think pakistan is waiting to see how it goes with the negotiations. that could have an impact -- on any different aspect. the prisons in afghanistan and the peace pipeline. and if the sanctions on iran oil and gas is removed, there's a chance they could invite india to join the project again. it's not in conflict that was promoted that was supported to get into afghanistan who india

and pakistan and afghanistan. but the security of both pipelines we have to compare one tribal area that is a relatively unsafe area on the peace pipeline that goes through the relatively safe area in pakistan and iran. asked to baluchistan, by the way, sharif was also involved in the peace pipeline. it's nothing that he's forced to take but baluchistan as you know the insurgency historically you don't have rules in that area and the most surprised area and

also the report shows the pakistan government that broke down on the insurgency and it's very similar. but most control of and of course iran over the region so so they are not doing enough to secure the border. it's going on for quite some time but in the media you would see that they are kind of blaming the pakistan government for being upset with the borders and not anything in pakistan of course they believed that sharif is close but there is a

difference when one of the officials put it out the other day that it's close to saudi arabia but is not the agent of saudi arabia and pakistan. it may be different but the other day the transfer of nuclear technologies that deal might change, but back to insurgency by the presidency unfortunately iran's response to these kind of insurgencies have been very harsh and keeping people prisoner. some of them to kind of lesser terms. they have instituted in revenge to the insurgency. so, during, their approach is

they would exchange prisoners for the group in baluchistan. the change for the government unfortunately had increased the violence and the resentment from the population against the central government. but the leader is a very different person and has really presented to go crazy to calm people down. and we've talked about the importance to bring people together basically.

>> on the water issues, we stole shamelessly from a white paper that's not yet been published that was written, and you have a very good recommendation on a water expert group that you would like to set up. where do things stand in terms of who is advising afghanistan on water and what's happening next year under us troops start to withdraw and funding is go down? will it be possible to work with other countries in the area on the river basin in particular? >> i believe that a lot of what we have seen him play right now is a huge role by the usaid in capacity building because right now it is incumbent on afghanistan to have people trained to work with the water issues and i believe right now the government of afghanistan sees that as a shortfall that they do know they need some

capacity building. and usaid is fundamentally involved in that. i believe th that universities n the area are also playing a role which is important to see. the university in kabul and kandahar are trying to bring forth some experts. the problem is in many of these areas they are considered on the permissive environments. a love o lot of the people in kl don't want to go down because they preceded to be kind of the wild west and it is just out of control down there. so, the perception of this all needs to change and i believe that there's also issues of considering water information to be a matter of national security. and a lot of times people don't feel compelled to share that. and they know that in the region when speaking in central asia and pakistan and india that the water information is gathered and is yours. so, the degree to which we can help with analysis that we are

not dependent on countries actually sharing a dialogue where we can get a sense of seeing it that has a role in this as well. but post- 2014 i believe that one of the issues that is good to come up as protecting the little bit of monitoring areas we've already got an established because you've got to engage in population and have them see a vested interest in understanding education is a huge component of making it all work on a watershed scale. hispanic i encountered this issue as a political level working as a political consultant to the un assisting the afghan government and addressing the afghan national development strategy and the afghanistan compact in 2,005, 2,006. and what i found is that there is a very high level of mistrust at the highest levels of the afghan government in the water

issues and in particular, there was a proposal to put in the contact something about afghanistan signing agreements with its neighbors which is actually required under the international law to get the project and levels of suspicion was so high that i was removed from the document. so i just want to emphasize the fact security, confidence building are likely to be necessary before we can move on to implement these ideas where there are good technical solutions that may be waiting that where the suspicions are extremely high and the stakes are very hi. >> if i can add one thing in afghanistan i'm sure you saw this. the different ministries play their cards close and hold them close to their chest, the

ministry of water and culture, irrigation, livestock, moral rehabilitation and development all have different interests and water and there needs to be different communication among them even in the united states we find those interagency dialogs. quickly i'm going to go to the audience. adjust your sense of what's going to happen next year. whether afghanistan is going to make it after these elections and whether the u.s. and nato will be able to withdraw and peace. >> i've never claimed to be an expert because i've never been there. and i -- after what we've been through the past couple of months, i would hesitate to make predictions about the future in the united states. however, i am confident they

will produce a result that will be recognized as a government. and that at least as long as the absolutely necessary financial support to the salaries of the security forces out of the government go along. there will be plenty of political crises and other emergencies but there's not going to be a collapse of the state as you saw after the soviet withdrawal. the regional situation is radically different. there is a regional consensus even including pakistan and strongly including china, which pakistan would like to alienate. there should be the taliban government in afghanistan. there are differences on what will become of hi them should py in the future set up of the country. i would also add one other factor which is that i have extensive personal relations with the members of the

political elite in afghanistan and of course there are many things they do that they don't tell me about. but i have observed a huge change in the past 13 years in their relations with each other, something which isn't often commented on 13 years ago they didn't know each other. their relations were yelling at each other over the radio. now including the people who are political, they all know each other and have worked together. prior to the election all of the candidates were running with each other and met each other extensively to talk about the rules for the game and how to resolve it and i'm confident that however disputed the outcome may be, those people with their relations with each other and the right international support will be able to find some kind of a settlement even if many of them were not that happy with it.

we have a lot of experts in this audience, which is great. >> thank you, barbara and to the panel. i have a two-part question the first one directed to fatemeh talking about the pakistan iran pipeline. there have been concerns if and when the pipeline is ever completed even in the first leg of the iran and pakistan if there will be enough gas available to put into the pipeline. if you could comment on that. the second question is addressed to both you and barney. this deals with the role of the groups in the region and whether there is still official support for these activities and what role pakistan plays in allowing these groups to address its

territory as very clear-cut or is this something happening in despite of what the government of pakistan would want to happ happen. >> to the pipeline first. of course that is a fact that from any, you know, any resources you would see that the scope is limited. the problem with iran is that they have failed to invest for 34 years. if 100 of what they have in the program and the ways and means to store the nuclear site they

would be in better shape. one major problem is gas is evaporated from the south park because they don't have the means to restore it. so one way for them to -- the right way actually to find the closest route and that was pakistan obviously that could have the major and very good project also involved. at this point, for every day that is delayed in delivering about, they are all losing something. not just money but the gas because they cannot just store it. i'm not an expert in the technical terms in regards to gas and oil, but they have other

alternatives. they concentrated heavily. the targeted pakistan and afghanistan, india and obviously that is why i called it the lion's tail and mane. so, they have done a lot providing pakistan with $500 million to start the project and they are getting impatient. but i doubted the doubt they wo. i personally think it would just go on and on and they would reach negotiations and to sanction would have a major impact on what happens with the peace pipeline. can i just mention -- the leader

was hanged in 2010, and the manpower during the insurgent group is not clear. no one knows how many people they had. there is a fine line between being involved in drug trafficking networks and freedom. they haven't claimed freedom. after the leader was hanged in 2010, almost 17 groups came out. the insurgent groups came out. they suspect -- they openly announced they have expanded and

the iranians claim the group is by the saudis with stability in the region and to drive that instability to other parts of iran. i hope i answered your question. >> did you want to say something quite. >> just briefly which opposes in the context where afghanistan, pakistan and iran meet. it's a largely nomadic people like many transported people they are involved in what we call smuggling and they call trade. and the relations with the government are ambiguous. afghanistan hasn't had an

internal problem primarily because afghanistan has supported the rebels in both iran and pakistan. pakistan is now going through it as the insurgency in baluchistan which is a second nationalist insurgency which is in conflict with the taliban both ethnic and ideological lines. the intensification of the ideological part of the regime under a minute led to more discontent among the populations of iran including. the united states may be supporting the pakistan, the baluchistan insurgency from

afghanistan iran has charged that pakistan and perhaps the united states and saudi arabia may be supporting the iranian baluchistan inside iran. the truth of these very charges is rather murky. however as a part of our policy in this administration, one of the measures that we tried to take early on in order to send a message to iran that the us presence in afghanistan was directed at the stabilization of afghanistan and not iran was to make it clear that the united states did not support, and though it took quite a long time to get the interagency process, he was declared a foreign service organization in 2010. now bear in mind the wall does not require the united states government to declare any organization that meets the criteria a foreign terrorist organization.

there's political latitude as to whether it is a good idea or not and there were people in the government argued that regardless of the empirical merits of the case that wasn't the time to do something that iran might consider a concessi concession. he did do it but it was less than all the noise of the other us iran relationship ended in a function as a confidence building measure. in the current nuclear negotiations, however, given the reactions that they are likely to cause in the saudi arabia and israel could very well be. perhaps you've already seen a factor in further aggravating the situation in particular because of the potential for the saudi involvement or the perception of the involvement. >> with the microphone and say your name, please. >> i have the american foundation right now former diplomat. i will start with water if you don't mind quickly.

now, what's the situation looks like and i think that you have slid right to it there is mistrust and a lack of political will because afghanistan and the government feel vulnerable and they don't have the type of -- they don't feel secure enough to be able to address it. so i think that part of it has to do with the fact that we don't have the capacities domestically to deal with this issue and especially at the top level of the government. and there is probably a lack of knowledge which translates to in action. nobody wants to touch this because they think it is a hot potato. and i have a question for barn barney. going back to iran. if you think that iran for

example over the next few months joins russia, china, india by not opposing and tolerating it, what impact would that have on the conciliation of the taliban on the april elections as well as the compensation forming the grouping of the governments concerned. as bad as far as the political will and the complications of the situation, when he was the head set up some watershed organizations to help maintain a continuity across the watershed across the implementation of the

plan it's very provocative and very hard with an even afghanistan. they have helmand province which is facilitated by the international forces and in opportunity to bring afghans together to discuss the situation. in that meeting it was the first time that they had sat together to have this discussion. historically and culturally they were connected with kandahar. it was an interesting at the end of that meeting the people at home and who were upstream. we understand your concerns and we will form a committee and i think that was the last.

>> i wouldn't predict a quick change in the position verbally because of the ideological role in opposition to the united displays and legitimacy of the iranian regime. but the hard-liners have tried to rig a position to the united states almost into a sixth pillar of islam although it isn't mentioned in the holy koran. therefore, it would be hard to walk back from the verbal opposition. however, if the nuclear negotiations to continue to progress, then the perception that an american presence in afghanistan is a direct threat

to iran will definitely be reduced. and therefore, i would expect that regardless of the evolution of iran's policy it will not undertake active measures to dissuade afghanistan from signing the agreement or make life more difficult for the american forces. and i'm sure as the actions will be read clearly in afghanistan throughout the region. within afghanistan's political elites in the current system as far as i can see there is a consensus in favor and even those who iran regards do not echo the position on that or i should say more precisely. from time to time one of them has said something to keep the money flowing from iran but they do not say it with any

conviction. they seem to be mobilizing the followers that or anything like that. so, i think that to the extent that it is a settled issue and it is not part of the debate it will not be a factor. it's important for the taliban because the legitimation of the struggle is on the basis of fighting the foreign occupation. if i can just summarize some interactions with people, what does and what to say the peace camp in the telegram and the current negotiation they say similar to iran that the presence of the us troops what they political agreement about afghans impossible because they

can't believe that there is a reasonably level playing field as long as the us and international security is supporting those who are in power now but therefore the troops should leave and then this would be very easy for afghans to reach an agreement. of course if the united states believe that that of course we don't believe that. i'm not sure the telegram believe it either. so the argument back to them even is well we don't believe you. we don't believe that will happen. therefore as long as there is a political settlement. if there is a political settlement, then of course those troops are only there by the agreement of the afghan government. if at some point the afghan government doesn't want to of course i think the united states would be very happy to take them away. i want to emphasize the united states is not seeking that agreement ttheagreement to haven capabilities and south and

central asia. they have those military bases in afghanistan as the most expensive ways to have that. if anyone has ever tried to setup and manage a military base in afghanistan with no. >> i'm going to take three questions. the gentl gentleman in the fron. >> from the afghanistan council i have two comments. one is that iran does have territorial problems in the west with iraq. they went to war and in south asia the problem created in 2,001 the treaty was a sensible, pragmatic one from the afghan

side. but surprisingly there was a true a few months later because the communists opposed to. when there was a re- approach but with the president then there was another coup which leads me to the point that it's crucial for 2014 for afghanistan to have a sensible government. and as a matter of fact i know of at least one or two candidates for the future, for this water negotiation. so it's there. it's not that it doesn't exist it just needs international backing. >> the former intern that wrote a paper that we cite. >> we also have two questions. first for doctor rubin. the way they are going to policy tends if the iranians then do

get on the table how do you think the pakistanis and the politicians who had iranian money etc. but if you have the iranians and a small foot on the door -- in the door. and my question to the doctor mac is what are the international organizations because when you are talking about iran or any organizations doing work on the ground or information exchanges between the two countries etc.? ...

>> to the rest of the world, and no one is helping them out either. so the u.s. could potentially play a bigger role perhaps helping afghanistan. >> short. one of the issues -- i'm glad you brought it up, is poppy crop. afghans have been involved in wars for decades now, then you don't know if you're going to be meeting the next five years.

you just have other agriculture products which is something that profits and is basically short term and you would not use anything if you have to leave. so how did iranians trying to help, trying to help afghans, taking them agriculture communism switching to other products. i don't know how close are following that, but it would contribute basically to helping afghans, and helping afghans with water management would definitely help afghans switch to other, you know, move away from poppy crop. that's actually one of the things iranians are asking a national commission to involve iranians because they claim they know how to do it.

>> thank you for that question. as for the international groups working with the world bank, food and agriculture organization's to install so monitoring stations. problems of the monitoring stations get put in. there is not specific maintenance. you can collect all the data in the world but if you don't have any analysis plan, what's the purpose? that i've been watching. a lot of times asian development bank seven funding, as well as in just put in wells across the country. however, there are some ms. glenn metrics because many times those groups are interested in the amount of money they can obligate and the number of jobs they can create, but the true sustainability of the project from representative, everyone instruments the project they want to do and there's no -- how you want to back that you may not have it.

and truly, finally other in national organizations that are working with the environment, as barbara alluded to very early in this, there is an internationally recognized wetlands area at the border with iran and afghanistan but however since 1999 timeframe is been severely degraded to a lot of this is because of climate issues. there's not water going into the system. a lot of that is tied to management of water or mismanagement of water. >> barney, final thoughts? >> first just about drugs. just repeat what's been said before. the adoption of poppy cultivation and its concurrent trafficking is an adaptation to insecurity in afghanistan. that's what all the study show. it will not be eliminated as long as people are insecure. there are provinces with strong governors in afghanistan that have a limited optical

commission. no one has a limited drug trafficking. it cannot be as long as there so much insecurity in the country. nice to meet you off the internet. if understood your question, correctly, it was about whether pakistan would react negatively and perhaps disruptively to greater iranian involvement. pakistan's involvement in afghanistan is not motivated by its concerns over iran. pakistan's involvement in afghanistan is motivated, first, by its internal concerns by its own unity. second, i threat from india. pakistan's actions in response to those perceived threats -- in response to perceived threats have it generate an arena response the pakistan iran conflict is not the main issue.

i think, i should also add iran's ambitions in afghanistan are limited. in contrast to pakistan i would say iran's means to influence events in afghanistan are probably greater than its ambitions, whereas pakistan's means to influence events in afghanistan has been considerably less than its ambitions and pakistan is, therefore, going through a very difficult process of trying to adjust its ambitions to israel capabilities. and a time when it's also internally and tremendous turmoil as well. >> thank you so much. thank you to our speakers. i think -- i've many more questions but i'm sure you all do. this is a great beginning. thank you so much for coming. [applause]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> author and astrophysicist neil degrasse tyson on america's call for engineers. >> as nasa's future goes, so too does that of america. and if nasa's healthy, then you don't need a program to convince people that science and engineering is good to do, because they'll see it writ large on the paper. there'll be calls for engineers to help us go ice fishing on your rope pa where there's an ocean of water that's been i lliquid for years. look at the nasa portfolio today. it's got biology, chemistry, fezzics,